[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 119 (Wednesday, September 21, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10273-S10287]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       NOMINATION OF JOHN ROBERTS

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, when a seat on the Supreme Court opened in 
July, I made a promise to the people of California. I promised I would 
only support a nominee I believed would protect their rights and 
freedoms.
  After much thought, I have concluded that I cannot in good conscience 
give my constituents that assurance with the nominee we have before the 
Senate, Judge John Roberts. In fact, I am very worried that with Judge 
Roberts on the Supreme Court, the rights and freedoms that have made 
America a light to the rest of the world could be in serious jeopardy.
  The question before the Senate is not whether Judge Roberts is a 
brilliant lawyer and not whether he is well qualified or well spoken or 
affable or unflappable. He is certainly all of those. But examining his 
credentials is where our analysis must begin, not end. The American 
people understand this. In poll after poll after poll, the American 
people say that before we vote, it is important to know where Judge 
Roberts stands on key issues that define us as Americans and what kind 
of country we will leave behind for our children.
  The next Chief Justice will have the opportunity to steer a deeply 
divided Court and influence our lives and the lives of our families for 
generations. In recent years, the Court has issued 5-to-4 decisions to 
protect our air, to safeguard women's reproductive health and the 
rights of the disabled, to give HMO patients the right to a second 
opinion, to allow universities to use affirmative action, and to 
guarantee government neutrality toward religion.
  With so many of our fundamental rights hanging in the balance, it is 
not good enough, in my view, to simply roll the dice, hoping a nominee 
will change his past views. It is not good enough to think this is the 
best we can expect from this President. I simply do not buy into that 
reasoning. And no, I don't buy into this reasoning either: Let's 
support this nominee because the next one might be worse. I will tell 
you why that rationale does not work for me and it will never work for 
me as long as the Constitution gives me and my colleagues in the Senate 
an equal role in this process.
  It fails the bar that I set--the bar that says that I must be able to 
look into the eyes of my constituents and assure them that I feel 
confident in this choice. I said I could only vote for a nominee who 
would protect the rights and the freedoms of the people I represent.
  I need to be able to look into the eyes of my constituents and to 
assure them I have made that judgment before I vote yes in their name. 
I can't do it here. We must demand far more in a nominee because the 
people we represent deserve no less.
  I will vote no on this nomination because of what we know and what we 
do not know about Judge Roberts.
  Long before President Bush made this nomination, we knew that his 
model judges were Justices Scalia and Thomas.
  Now, President Bush isn't known for changing his mind, so that 
doesn't leave us in a good place if we're hoping for a moderate. Nor 
does a reading of Judge Robert's record while he served in the Reagan 
Administration 20 years ago.
  In fact, some of Judge Roberts's writings raise serious concerns 
about whether he understands the ugly history of discrimination and 
injustice in our country, or the proper role of government in injustice 
and discrimination.
  Of course, we were told over and over again by Judge Roberts and by 
this administration and some of his supporters: Do not pay attention to 
those memos; they were written long ago; he was just a young man; he 
was just a lowly staff attorney. Here is the point: Judge Roberts never 
backed away from those memos. When given the chance, he said over and 
over again they were written for someone else. Someone else is not up 
for the Supreme Court; Judge Roberts is up for the Supreme Court. So to 
simply say, Yes, I wrote that, but I wrote it for someone else, just 
does not pass the test.
  Then we try to examine Judge Roberts' tenure years later as a top 
political appointee under the first President Bush. That is when he 
worked as Deputy Solicitor General for Ken Starr,

[[Page S10274]]

who was the Solicitor General. Again and again, Senator Leahy, Senator 
Kennedy, Senator Feinstein, all the Democrat Senators on the Judiciary 
Committee asked for documents relating to just 16 cases that would have 
shed some light on the way Judge Roberts approaches civil rights, 
reproductive health, the separation of church and state, environmental 
protection, and more. The Democratic women Senators asked too. But 
again and again, the administration refused to turn over the documents, 
and Judge Roberts refused to help us.
  The President had access to that information when he nominated Judge 
Roberts. Why should this Senate a full partner in choosing the next 
Justice--have anything less?
  This is not a small point of process. This goes to the heart and soul 
of what we are expected to do as Senators. We are supposed to be an 
equal partner in this process. We have the role of advice and consent 
to the President on judicial nominations. How can we do our job if the 
administration has access to information and yet we don't? I don't 
think it is fair. I don't think it is just.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for making her statement and 
particularly her comments about the effort by the Judiciary Committee 
to seek some 16 of the 300 cases in which Judge Roberts was involved as 
a Deputy Solicitor General.

  As Judge Roberts pointed out during the hearings, when he was acting 
as the Solicitor General, he was acting as America's lawyer. That was 
not being a part of the Republican administration. The Solicitor 
General is to act as America's lawyer. That is why even Robert Bork, 
when he was Solicitor General, gave the information to the committee; 
and Brad Reynolds, who was in the Solicitor General's Office, also gave 
the materials from the Solicitor General to the committee.
  As I have listened to the Senator, this is basically Judge Roberts' 
job interview for America. The members of the Judiciary Committee are 
just instruments to try to help the American people understand this 
nominee. It seems to me if the material had been favorable to Judge 
Roberts, they probably would have made it available. I imagine the 
American people are wondering, since others have made it available, why 
they did not make it available for him and why they denied the American 
people additional helpful information so they would be able to make up 
their own minds during the course of the hearing.
  I underline the point the Senator made about the importance of 
information and the importance of documents. Would the Senator not 
agree this is basically Judge Roberts' interview with America, that the 
Judiciary Committee is the instrument by which the American people are 
forming an impression? It is a worthwhile part.
  This is no more a client-lawyer relationship than the man in the 
moon, although some have suggested that. This is a longstanding process 
where that material has been made available to the Judiciary Committee. 
I have had the good opportunity to sit for some 20 nominees, I have 
seen the different procedures followed, and I have seen when it has 
worked the best. The information has been made available to the 
American people, and this is the point the Senator is making.
  I wanted to ask the Senator if she agreed with me that this is his 
job interview with America?
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator for asking me this question. I could 
not agree more. The American people have told us through many polls 
that they want to have this information. They want to know. They 
believe it is more important and I believe the number was 77 percent 
said it was more important to know about where Judge Roberts stood than 
it was to know about his qualifications. Everyone agrees on his 
qualifications. The Senator is absolutely right. It is, to me, very 
disappointing that the judge himself refused to help us.
  It is also my understanding--and Senator Kennedy, if I am wrong, I 
hope you will correct me--that when Judge Rehnquist was up for the 
Court, he also turned over documents from when he was a lawyer in 
government. So we had Judge Rehnquist, we had Robert Bork, and that was 
the right thing to do.
  You have to ask the question, What are they hiding? The American 
people are very smart. They understand it. Why wouldn't one show the 
committee this information?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. I am delighted to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The point being this was only a request for 16 cases out 
of the 300 cases he actually participated in directly. There were many 
more where he expressed an opinion. These 16 directly involve 
constitutional issues. One was on a case involving affirmative action 
where the Federal Communications Commission asked the Solicitor 
General's Office to support their program on affirmative action because 
no major television stations were available to any of the minorities, 
Black or Brown, in this country, and they were trying to work out a 
process where there could be greater availability and they would be 
able to participate in these various bids that were coming in. They 
requested the Solicitor General to help them. They had a program. It 
had been approved. They asked the Solicitor General's Office to help 
them with their program.
  What happened is not only did Mr. Roberts decide he wouldn't help 
them, he filed a brief for the Solicitor General's Office in opposition 
to the agency's program that would have opened up greater competition, 
greater diversity in terms of communication and ownership. That is 
exceptionally done, rarely ever done. All we were trying to find out 
was the circumstances--why did this happen, this unique set of 
circumstances?
  Clearly, if we had enough time, I suppose we could have had the 
Federal communications lawyers at that time come in, and we could have 
tried to do our own kind of investigation on this particular case. But 
that is not what these hearings are all about, and that was 
illustrative of the type of case that was being requested and was 
denied to the Judiciary Committee, which had a direct relevancy as to 
his competency--whether we were going to continue to march toward 
progress in striking down the walls of discrimination, the walls of 
denial of opportunity, the gender discrimination which we have had in 
this country and which we made very substantial progress in over the 
period of the last 30 years with title IX, the actions that we have 
taken in terms of the 1964, 1965 Act, the 1968 Housing Act.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to the Senator, I think what we have tried to do in 
this little exchange is make a point to the American people that 
information was denied to the Judiciary Committee, and that information 
was denied to the Senate. And, the only information we have is very 
slim. It is a 2-year stint on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
  We have a lot of information from 20 years ago. So on the one hand, 
it is kind of a catch-22 circumstance here. When you go back 20 years 
ago, everybody says: Oh, that is old information. It does not reflect 
Judge Roberts. You ask Judge Roberts, he won't answer. He says he was 
writing for someone else. So we then need to look at the time in the 
1990s when he worked in the Solicitor General's office. But, we cannot 
get that information. So we go around in a circle.
  I have to say, if this debate were about a small matter, it would be 
one thing. But, we are talking about the future of this country. The 
importance of a position on the U.S. Supreme Court cannot be 
overstated.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am happy to yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. On those memoranda, I think the Senator quite 
appropriately recorded that he had written those a number of years ago. 
And he, when he was asked about those memos, indicated he was just 
working for the administration. Of course, he made the application to 
work for the administration; he was vetted for the administration; he 
got the job with the administration. So this was something he very much 
wanted to do. He was constantly promoted within the administration. He 
could have very easily worked in another area. As John Lewis pointed 
out, this was a key moment in American history in terms of the march 
toward progress and moving ahead in terms of knocking down walls of 
discrimination.

[[Page S10275]]

  I say, as a member of the committee, I was disappointed that Judge 
Roberts would not say whether those were his views today. That was the 
key. You can accept that, well, he was just an attorney in the Ford 
administration and was carrying on the administration's policy, 
although I think that is a stretch in many of the different memoranda 
that he wrote, when he explicitly said ``this is my opinion'' and ``I 
believe,'' as compared to ``we believe'' or ``it is our position.'' I 
think that is very distinguishable.
  But, nonetheless, he was asked repeatedly, as I mentioned in my 
comments earlier, by Senator Kohl, by Senator Feingold, by Senator 
Biden, and other members of the committee, are those his views today? I 
expected he would say, ``well, you know, times have changed. I wouldn't 
have used those words. I wouldn't have come, perhaps, to those 
conclusions,'' which would have been very understandable. But there is 
not a single instance--not a single instance--during the course of 
those hearings where he said: Those are not my views today. I have 
changed my position.
  I think the Senator appropriately points out that aspect of the 
hearings and why that is troublesome. Because we only can conclude if 
he does not disown those positions, they may very well be his positions 
today, which would be very disturbing.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to the Senator, again you are making a very 
important point. The fact is, Senators on the Judiciary Committee--and 
I watched every minute of the hearings I could. I even watched the 
reruns of your hearings in the evening. You gave Judge Roberts ample 
opportunity in a very nice way to distance himself from his writings. 
He refused to do so. He simply said: I was doing this for my boss, and 
I was thinking like my boss. It is not good enough because he is the 
one who is up for Chief Justice.
  I know Senator Bennett would like me to conclude, and I will do so.
  In his reviewing his record, I also looked for some assurance in the 
decisions Judge Roberts wrote during his two years on the DC Circuit. 
But, again, nothing. In fact, some cases raised serious concerns about 
his commitment to protect the environment and his support of an all-
powerful executive branch.
  Judge Roberts had three days to tell the Senate and the American 
people what he really believes today.
  He had the chance repeatedly to distance himself from the 
controversial positions he once advocated. He did not.
  Let's face it: Judge Roberts was specific only when it mattered least 
and evasive when it mattered most.
  Last year I ran for the Senate, and I ran a commercial that people 
said was very direct, but that is the kind of Senator I am. I said in 
my own words, right in that commercial, I would do everything in my 
power to ensure that we never go back to those dark days of back-alley 
abortions, when thousands of women died and many others were rendered 
infertile.
  We know that Judge Roberts signed a brief calling for Roe to be 
overturned. It was one of those 16 cases the administration will not 
release. And it concerned one of the many important topics about which 
Judge Roberts refused to answer questions.

  To simply say Roe is a precedent, which he said over and over again, 
is stating the obvious. Every case of the Supreme Court is a precedent. 
And to say you respect precedent, yes, every judge must respect 
precedent. But it does not give us an inkling into his views, and that 
is not good enough.
  We deserved an answer to Senator Feinstein's questions about privacy: 
Does the right to privacy extend to the beginning of life and the end 
of life? We still don't know what Judge Roberts believes.
  We deserved an answer to Senator Biden's question about gender 
discrimination. Does Judge Roberts stand by an interpretation of title 
IX that would have denied all remedies to a girl who was repeatedly 
sexually harassed by her teacher? We still do not know how Judge 
Roberts feels.
  We deserved an answer to Senator Kennedy's probing questions about 
civil rights. Does Judge Roberts have any concerns about the 
constitutionality of landmark civil rights laws? We still do not know.
  How could he be silent on those laws. They stand out in history as 
landmark moments that changed the course of human events in America 
forever, that finally spoke to all our citizens and told them they were 
equal, and the government would make sure they were protected and safe.
  We deserved answers to Senator Leahy's questions about Congressional 
War Powers. We did not get them.
  Now, Judge Roberts says as a Justice, he will ``just'' be an umpire 
calling balls and strikes. Of course, balls and strikes look a lot 
different depending on where the umpire is standing. And umpires have a 
lot of power to decide who wins and who loses.
  So who will be the winners if we confirm Judge Roberts next week? 
Will it be the families of America? Will it be the children of America? 
Will it be the victims of violence? Will it be the poor and the 
powerless? Will it be the middle class? Will it be the environment? 
Will it be freedom? Will it be liberty? Will it be justice? Will it be 
our Constitution? Or will the winners be those who want to stop the 
national Government from acting to protect and defend our people and 
their rights and their freedoms?
  I cannot tell my people that Judge Roberts will continue the steady 
march of progress that has defined our country's proud history.
  So I will vote no. And because I believe the Senate deserves those 16 
cases that Senator Kennedy talked about, and answers to our questions, 
I will vote no.
  I hope and pray my doubts about Judge Roberts are misplaced and that 
he will join the moderate wing of the Court to protect the Constitution 
of this country that I love so much and the deserving people of my 
great State who will be counting on him to protect their rights and 
their freedoms.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the hour of 4 o'clock has come and gone. 
That was the hour by which all amendments to the bill had to be 
submitted. We had 120. We have disposed affirmatively of 31 of those, 
and we are not at all sure the other roughly 90 are all going to be 
offered.
  The majority leader has made it clear he wants to finish this bill 
tonight, and so I say to those who have amendments still on the list, 
if they do not show up to offer their amendments, we will move to third 
reading at an appropriate time. We want to accommodate the majority 
leader's desire. I think it is the desire of most of the Members of the 
Senate to move forward. So I say to the other Members who do have 
amendments, you are on notice that if you do not let us know you are 
going to be here and try to reserve some time to call up your 
amendment, we will indeed move to third reading. There are hotlines 
that have been going out to Senators who have amendments filed to give 
them that message. We will go forward in that fashion.


                     Amendments Nos. 1754 and 1755

  Mr. President, I do have two additional amendments to those that have 
already been cleared, which I send to the desk and ask for their 
immediate consideration. Both are on behalf of Senator Salazar of 
Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be 
considered en bloc. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Salazar, 
     proposes amendments numbered 1754 and 1755 en bloc.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments en bloc are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1754

(Purpose: To provide for a report on the impact of increased prices of 
 gas, natural gas, and diesel on agricultural producers, ranchers, and 
                           rural communities)

       On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 7___. Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture, in 
     cooperation with the Secretary of Energy, shall provide to 
     the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives a 
     report that describes the impact of increased prices of gas,

[[Page S10276]]

     natural gas, and diesel on agricultural producers, ranchers, 
     and rural communities.


                           amendment no. 1755

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Agriculture to prepare a report 
   on the conduct of activities to address bark beetle infestations)

       On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 7___. The Secretary of Agriculture (referred to in 
     this section as the ``Secretary'') shall prepare a report for 
     submission by the President to Congress, along with the 
     fiscal year 2007 budget request under section 1105 of title 
     31, United States Code, that--
       (1) identifies measures to address bark beetle infestation 
     and the impacts of bark beetle infestation as the first 
     priority for assistance under the Healthy Forests Restoration 
     Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.);
       (2) describes activities that will be conducted by the 
     Secretary to address bark beetle infestations and the impacts 
     of bark beetle infestations;
       (3) describes the financial and technical resources that 
     will be dedicated by the Secretary to measures to address 
     bark beetle infestations and the impacts of the infestations; 
     and
       (4) describes the manner in which the Secretary will 
     coordinate with the Secretary of the Interior and State and 
     local governments in conducting the activities under 
     paragraph (2).

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I call for a vote on the two amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments.
  The amendments (Nos. 1754 and 1755) were agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. With that, Mr. President, we continue to go through the 
amendments that are available to us to see if they can be cleared on 
both sides in an effort to get them cleared. But I say, once again, to 
Senators who may be watching, we need to have an understanding of 
whether you are coming forward. We will soon reach the point where the 
amendments that can be cleared on both sides have been. At that point, 
if a Senator has not notified us of his intention to proceed and has 
not shown up, we will move to third reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah should be advised that 
in my capacity as a Senator from Oklahoma, I plan to offer amendments, 
and I will make those arrangements forthwith.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Presiding Officer. We were aware of his 
intention to offer his amendments, and we will not take advantage of 
him being trapped in the Chair to move ahead without protecting his 
rights and his interests.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thanks the Senator.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 1760, Withdrawn

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a brief colloquy with 
Senator Cochran, who is the chairman of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee, to discuss agriculture disaster assistance. The purpose of 
this colloquy is to set the stage for withdrawing a pending amendment 
which I am sure the chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from 
Utah, will be happy to hear.
  This has been a tough year for agricultural producers from coast to 
coast. Hurricane Katrina has decimated production throughout the gulf 
coast. The most recent USDA estimates released yesterday put hurricane-
related losses in that region at nearly $900 million as a result of 
Hurricane Katrina. Having just visited this region with Senator Cochran 
a few days ago, I am not surprised. The devastation there is 
unimaginable, until one is on the scene.
  In addition, we have had a terrible drought in the Midwest--in my 
home State of Illinois, Missouri, parts of Iowa, and Minnesota. We have 
had the worst drought in over 100 years in some parts of my State. 
Every county but one in Illinois has been designated a disaster area by 
the Secretary of Agriculture. Corn that should be standing 10 feet tall 
in some of the most fertile ground in America barely measures 6 feet 
and, sadly, is not going to produce much. The same is true for many of 
my counties when it comes to soybean production.
  These drought conditions have reduced crop yields. Based on September 
USDA estimates of 2005 crop production and prices, the value of corn 
and soybean production in Illinois has been reduced by over $792 
million, relative to what might have been expected under average 
growing conditions. In addition to these losses, there may be impacts 
on other crops and pastures as well.
  We also face flooding in parts of North Dakota, red tide problems in 
New England that are shutting down shellfish producers who depend on 
the sea for their livelihoods, and an extended drought in the West and 
parts of the South, including Arkansas.
  During this uncertain time, it is important to ensure that our 
agricultural producers stay in business. Most producers depend on 
farming for their livelihoods. In addition, there is an intrinsic good 
in knowing our food has been grown locally, is regulated by the Federal 
and State Governments, and is the safest in the world. We all benefit 
when American farmers are prosperous. For all of these reasons, I hope 
to ensure that our farmers, ranchers, and others who face disaster 
losses have their day in court when it comes to our Federal Government.
  We have done this in the past. Last year, following a series of 
hurricanes, we enacted legislation to provide assistance to farmers who 
experienced crop loss.
  I wish to ask the Senator from Mississippi to include agriculture 
losses incurred due to Hurricane Katrina and other national disasters, 
including the drought in the Midwest, in the next Katrina supplemental 
package.
  I yield the floor to the Senator from Mississippi for a response.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am happy to join my friend from 
Illinois in bringing to the attention of the Senate the fact that there 
have been substantial losses that have occurred as a result of 
Hurricane Katrina, particularly in the States of Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and Alabama.
  Having visited the State, as the Senator pointed out, just recently, 
it makes a vivid impression upon anyone who looks upon the widespread 
disaster that was caused by this dreadful hurricane.
  While we do have on the books Federal crop insurance programs, other 
disaster assistance authorization, there always seems to be examples in 
a disaster of this kind of unmet needs and where, for some reason or 
another, the effect of the disaster is not fully protected by existing 
programs.
  I am pleased to note, on page 88 in the committee report accompanying 
this appropriations bill, the committee includes information about the 
recent amendments to the Agricultural Risk Protection Act. It amended 
the original Federal Crop Insurance Act to strengthen the safety net 
for agricultural producers by providing greater access to more 
affordable risk management tools and improved protection from 
production and income loss and to improve the efficiency and integrity 
of the Federal Crop Insurance Program.
  So progress has been made, but notwithstanding, I agree to work with 
the Senator from Illinois and the chairman of the subcommittee to craft 
language and funding that would be approved by the Senate, it is my 
hope, in any supplemental bill which the administration may request.
  It is my understanding, from a visit yesterday with the Director of 
the Office of Management and Budget, it is expected that the 
administration will request an additional appropriation supplementing 
the funds that are available for many Government agencies and some 
departments to continue to provide disaster assistance to help recover 
from this dreadful hurricane.
  In that legislation, when it does come before the Senate, we will 
work together to ensure that an appropriate provision is included, as 
described by the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for 
coming over to the floor because I know

[[Page S10277]]

there are thousands of agricultural producers across the United States 
who were anxious to hear we are mindful of the disasters they have 
faced and in the region of Hurricane Katrina and other natural 
disasters across our country.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following cosponsors be added to the 
amendment I have sent to the desk: My colleague from Illinois, Senator 
Obama, who shares my feelings on the drought that has faced our State, 
as well as my colleague from across the Mississippi River, Senator 
Bond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, with this colloquy, however, I feel 
confident we can work together to resolve this problem in a reasonable 
way and, as a consequence, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
amendment No. 1760.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleague, the 
senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, for his work in crafting this 
legislation, of which I am a cosponsor. This amendment would provide 
critically needed disaster relief to Illinois farmers who face 
significant financial jeopardy from crop losses due to this season's 
historic drought.
  Illinois agriculture is experiencing one of the driest periods in the 
last century and certainly one of the most severe droughts in two 
decades. Illinois is the Nation's leading producer of corn and 
soybeans. However, U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, reports show 
that more than half of the corn crop and almost a third of the soybean 
crop have been decimated by drought. Of the 102 counties in Illinois, 
98 have reported crop damage due to the lack of rainfall.
  In July, Senator Durbin and I asked the Secretary of Agriculture to 
declare the affected counties in Illinois an agriculture disaster area. 
I am pleased that President Bush granted our request to give our 
Illinois farmers some much-deserved relief, qualifying Illinois farmers 
for USDA assistance programs, including low-interest emergency loans.
  While this action provided an important amount of economic 
assistance, the scope and severity of this year's drought requires that 
additional measures be taken. At the present time, most of northern and 
western Illinois remains in a severe or extreme drought. Much of 
eastern Illinois is classified as abnormally dry. This is particularly 
alarming because farmers are at a critical point in the growing season.
  Moreover, the reduction in fuel refining capacity caused by Hurricane 
Katrina has resulted in Illinois farmers facing a sudden surge in 
unanticipated fuel costs on top of already escalating fuel prices. The 
disruption in Mississippi River traffic at gulf ports, where half of 
the Nation's grain exports are shipped for foreign markets, has spiked 
shipping costs for farm commodities transported by barge downriver. The 
threat of an aflatoxin outbreak that affects corn during times of crop 
stress and drought is also of particular concern in recent weeks; 
should this condition progress after harvest and storage, farmers may 
face additional financial consequences in the coming months.
  I understand that the Senior Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, 
has made a commitment to address this issue in the next hurricane 
supplemental appropriations bill that is sent to Congress. Given that 
commitment, I support Senator Durbin's decision to withdraw the 
amendment, and I thank Senator Cochran for his cooperation.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we are making progress. I see the Senator 
from Minnesota on the floor and hope that he can proceed with his 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. DAYTON. Is there an amendment pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no amendment pending.


                    Amendment No. 1844, as Modified

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1844 and send a 
modification to the desk and ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Dayton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1744, as modified.

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 88, line 16, strike ``$23,103,000'' and insert 
     ``$21,103,000''.
       On page 109, line 21, before the period at the end, insert 
     the following: ``: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     made available by this Act may be used to carry out section 
     508A(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508A(c)) in a manner that, for purposes of counties declared 
     to be disaster areas in calendar year 2005 by the Secretary 
     under section 321(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1961(a)) or by the President under 
     the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), applies the phrase 
     `in the same crop year' to have a meaning other than not 
     later than October 15 of the year in which the first crop was 
     prevented from being planted''.

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. It 
addresses the severe crisis in counties in northwestern Minnesota that 
were flooded last June after they had planted their crops. Many farmers 
in that region of my State lost most or even all of their crops. So the 
preventive planting program has been established which allows them to 
plant alfalfa and other cover. It says, after November 1, they may 
harvest the crop or graze on the crop. That works well for most of the 
country, but whoever wrote that date into law some time ago forgot to 
check the weather maps as they pertain to northern Minnesota which, by 
November 1, is often under snow.
  The intent of the program is to provide for the ecological covering 
of the affected acreage, then allowing for farmers to salvage something 
off the land in addition to the preventive payment from the Government 
by harvesting it or allowing grazing on it. The effective date is too 
late to benefit Minnesota farmers.
  This amendment would simply say, for those counties in Minnesota and 
elsewhere across the country that have been declared an agriculture 
disaster in this calendar year by either the President of the United 
States or by the Secretary of Agriculture, pursuant to their 
authorities, that they would then, for the purpose of this year only, 
be able to use that acreage for harvesting or grazing effective October 
15. It moves up the timetable.
  I think it preserves the original and actual intent of the program, 
and it means it applies to northern Minnesota, as it does to the rest 
of the country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Minnesota does involve some cost. We are, at the moment, unable to have 
a score from CBO. We are working on getting a scoring from CBO, so I 
ask we not vote on this amendment at the present time, until we get 
that.
  I will say to the Senator and to Senators, generally, since the 
passage of the bill by the committee, we have had a number of requests, 
such as the one from the Senator from Minnesota, many of which appear 
to be meritorious but when added together, we get a sum of money that 
we simply cannot sustain under our allocation. So we have taken the 
position that we will not entertain these additional requests for 
money.
  There are a number of Senators who have been disappointed as a result 
of that position, including, if I may say, the Senator from Utah. I 
felt that I had to deal with everybody equally, and those requests that 
have come in from my own State since the passage of the bill by the 
committee, with some difficulty, I have had to say to people, I cannot 
treat Utah differently than others.
  This is a meritorious issue the Senator has raised, and I am not 
saying we will automatically oppose it because it does add to the list 
that I described. Because we want to know exactly what the number would 
be and get the information from CBO, I ask that we set this one aside 
for the time being, and when we have that information, then I

[[Page S10278]]

will be in a better position to respond to the Senator's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman. I say 
that the practice of the committee chairman of treating himself equally 
with anyone else should be noted and praised. I commend it to the rest 
of the committee chairmen and ranking members as well. I thank the 
chairman for his remarks.
  I apologize for the late moment and also the absence of a score. I 
had received a score today on a broader amendment, which was $2 million 
for this coming fiscal year 2006. I was asked to restrict the 
amendment. I believe, quite confidently, when the score is obtained, it 
will be less than that $2 million.
  I am mindful of the imperatives on the subcommittee that they have to 
meet the mark they have been given. I recognize this will have an 
impact on that. I hope my staff might work with the chairman's staff 
and look for some suitable offset and some way to address this issue.
  I thank the chairman for his consideration. I apologize again for 
adding to his burdens.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comment and 
assure him this is no burden, and we will do the best we can.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, in a few moments, I will offer several 
amendments, but I feel inclined, because of what we have heard about 
the last two or three amendments that have come forward here, to 
comment.
  There are products offered called crop insurance. It is very 
important for us as a Senate to remember that everything in life has 
risk. As we look at Katrina and the tremendous issues that have come 
forward, not everybody who has a loss in this country is entitled for 
the Federal taxpayers to pay for that loss. If my house burns down and 
I am underinsured, is that a Federal Government responsibility? At what 
level do we recognize personal responsibility and risk in terms of 
natural events?
  There is no question we are going to be working hard to do our part 
at the Federal level to aid those involved in the tragedy of Hurricane 
Katrina, but the very idea that now we are considering helping those 
people means we jump on with everybody else who has a need in this 
country right now is a very dangerous trend that I guarantee we cannot 
afford.
  I applaud the statement of the Senator from Utah in recognizing there 
is a limit to what we can afford. I know these issues will come through 
in regular order and process, but I think it has to be said that these 
are meritorious, that is right, but they are going to have to be listed 
with the rest of the priorities in this country of what has to come 
first.
  We do not have an unending source of funds, although sometimes we act 
as if we do. These are going to have to be put in that order of 
priority. I am sure this body will do that in terms of priority, but 
what we cannot do is continue to mortgage the future of the next two 
generations by not making those hard choices.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1773

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would like to call up amendment 1773.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
laid aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1773.

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To reduce spending levels, to promote more efficient use of 
     resources, and to encourage more appropriate budget estimates)

       On page 122, line 24, strike ``$653,102,000'' and insert 
     ``$610,754,560''.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is the first of many amendments I am 
going to be offering the rest of the year to make a downpayment for our 
grandchildren to pay for Hurricane Katrina. I start small, but there 
are many in Washington who say we cannot do it, that there is not the 
waste, fraud, and abuse, there are not significant dollars that are not 
spent wisely and prioritized. This is one that I am not sure will pass, 
but it certainly cannot not be recognized by anybody who looks at the 
books of the rental assistance program that this is an appropriate 
amendment. The appropriation for this program in 2005 was $587,264,000. 
The budget estimate for 2006 was $650 million, the House allowance was 
$650 million, and the committee recommendation is $653 million.
  According to the committee, this program and the objective of the 
program is to reduce rents paid by low-income families living in rural 
housing service financed with rental projects and farm labor housing 
projects. That is a meritorious goal. It is something we ought to be 
doing, and I fully support doing that. However, the payments from the 
fund are made to the project owner for the difference between the 
tenant's payment and the approved rental rate established for the unit.
  Why would I offer an amendment to trim that back? It is because the 
rental assistance program has been gaming us, according to the 
Government Accountability Office. Let me explain how.
  In March 2004, they reported that since 1990--this is 14 years--the 
rental housing program had consistently overestimated its budget needs 
for the rental assistance program. Concern had arisen about the issue 
in early 2003 because RLS reported hundreds of millions in unexpended 
balances tied to its rental assistance contracts. Specifically, in 
estimating the needs for rental assistance contracts, it routinely uses 
higher inflation factors than recommended by OMB, did not apply the 
inflation rates that are recommended to each year of a contract, and 
based the estimates of future spending on recent high usage rather than 
the average usage of the rental assistance program.
  First, the agency used inflated factors that were higher than those 
recommended by the OMB budget process, that they didn't apply it 
separately to each year, but they did it cumulatively to gain the 
amount of money they were asking from Congress. The result was an 
inflation rate that was more than five times the rate of the last year 
than the first year. So therefore the numbers they are asking for and 
the balances that are retained are high. And they are not utilizing the 
money we are appropriating. They are just accumulating money. RLS based 
its estimates of future expenditures on recent maximum expenditures--
and that may very well be right, but that is what we are doing in 
supplementals, that is what we have done the supplementals for--rather 
than the average rates for which the units were funded historically.
  According to GAO in its most recent report the agency was not 
following the guidelines, and they actually overestimated their need 
last year by $51 million or 6 percent of their appropriations. That is 
not Tom Coburn saying that. That is the General Accounting Office 
saying it. The GAO has harshly criticized the agency for lacking proper 
internal control standards through its administration of this program. 
As a matter of fact, one single employee has largely been responsible 
for both budget estimating and allocating rental assistance funds. This 
amendment simply reduces it from a growth rate of 10 percent to a 
growth rate of 4 percent. That is higher than our rate of inflation, 
but it brings it back in line.

  The agency has proven it cannot forecast its real needs accurately. 
It has not forecast its real needs accurately. It fails to track its 
real needs and fails to track its basic expenditures.
  Let me underscore one point. This program will still receive a $23.5 
million increase this year under this amendment. If we hope to approach 
any type of fiscal sanity in the Senate or in this country through this 
Government, then we have to start holding

[[Page S10279]]

agencies accountable. We can have all the GAO reports we want. If they 
keep getting the money on the same basis that they are getting the 
money, then we are not going to change behavior. What we want to do is 
not hurt one person who is relying on us for this rental assistance, 
but what we do want is the agency to apply and come up to the standards 
that are recognized as necessary in the Federal Government.
  This is one of several amendments I will be offering over the next 
couple of months. But it proves to the American taxpayer that we can do 
better. My hope is that the committee will look at this amendment, 
decide that the GAO was right, decide that they have overestimated it, 
and trim back this money.
  This money is money that can be saved and used to start to offset the 
costs of this catastrophe that is in front of us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma is correct in 
the comments that he makes about the GAO and their study of this 
program. We have looked into it for the same reasons that the Senator 
from Oklahoma has and find that there have been mistakes made and there 
have been overestimates made. However, we have also discovered that the 
Department has recognized this and has made changes in the program, and 
the Department has reacted to the criticism that has come from the GAO.
  The estimates that we have before us in this bill we believe are 
sound and the concern we have is that there is, in fact, no extra money 
sitting around. If we were to accept the amendment the Senator has 
offered, there would, in fact, be people who are currently in low-
income housing who would lose that housing. They would lose that 
housing immediately upon passage of this bill.
  It is further, of course, exacerbated by the situation created by 
Katrina, in that people have lost their housing by virtue of the 
hurricane, and to see others who have not been affected by the 
hurricane turned out because of the cutback in this program is 
something I do not think anybody would want to see.
  The President requested $650 million, as the Senator said. We are at 
$653 million, based on the information that we have from the 
Department, which we now believe is far more accurate than the 
information of previous years. The GAO criticism is correct about 
misestimates.
  Also, we point out these are 4-year contracts, so that something that 
appears to be money sitting there is, in fact, not necessarily money 
sitting there. It is money that has been committed over the 4-year 
contract. This is not just a single year's appropriation.
  For these reasons I would have to oppose the amendment of the Senator 
because I believe in the present circumstances we do not want to have 
the consequence of having people who are currently in housing, 
currently receiving aid under this program, lose that aid and have to 
leave their housing. If it were entirely prospective, I would be more 
sympathetic to the amendment of the Senator, but all of the information 
I have is that it would, in fact, cause people who are currently 
receiving this to lose their housing.
  I know the Senator from Oklahoma has some other amendments. I would 
like to give as much notice as possible to Senators around the city as 
to when we would take a vote. The Senator from Oklahoma says he would 
like to have this the subject of a rollcall vote. Of course, we will 
accommodate him. But if we could find out what other amendments the 
Senator has, and see if we could have a discussion and then set a time 
for those votes to be stacked--if indeed he wishes to have additional 
rollcall votes?
  I ask if the Senator could respond to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I will be happy to respond. The Senator 
from Utah has my great respect. I know he is an accountant and has a 
tremendous background in terms of finance. But if you overestimate for 
the 3 years prior to coming into this before you change it, and you 
have contracts based on that that were overestimated, you do have an 
excess of funds in there now. There will be no shortage of rental 
payments because of the over-roll of the overpayments, the overestimate 
of the contracts that have been made.

  The good answer for the American people is this is going to throw 
people out. It is not going to throw a person out. There is plenty of 
money in this account. There is almost $50 million at the end of this 
year left in this account that is not expended and can be spent. So it 
is not accurate to say people will not be able to have the homes that 
they have.
  I think the Senator will agree that if, in fact, you overestimate 
inflation rates 4 years running, and you have been appropriated all 
that money looking forward for that, and you had contracts on costs 
that were less than that, if anything the surplus will grow if the 
usage is the same.
  To make the argument that we should not do this because somebody 
might be thrown out, when, in fact, it is not accurate based on the 
funding that is in this account at this time, doesn't do justice to the 
very problems that we have before us.
  I do not expect this amendment to pass, and I probably will not ask 
for a rollcall vote. I don't know what I am going to do in terms of 
asking for a rollcall vote. But it is that kind of thing we have to 
look at. We have to tighten our belts. There is loose money in this 
program. It can be done better. They have demonstrated they have 
started to do better, but they have not demonstrated they are doing 
better. What I would ask is for us to send a message: Do better. It 
doesn't undercut the first person we are trying to help. We have 
already sent $62 billion out there for this disaster, and we are 
planning on sending more. If we need to make an adjustment in one of 
those appropriations bills, if in fact I am wrong and you are right--
which I do not believe to be the case--we can do it then. But send the 
signal: Do it right, do it efficiently, and do it for the best price 
you can because our grandchildren are counting on you.
  I hope at some point in time we will start getting to the realization 
that we have to start making some choices. This is a choice that is not 
going to hurt the first person, but it is going to change an agency to 
make them recognize you are going to start playing with real numbers 
and quit gaming the system. They have a cushion. They know they have a 
cushion. I believe the appropriators and accounting staff know they 
have a cushion, and we ought to take that cushion away and make them do 
what they should be doing.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am unaware of the existence of the 
cushion. I would be happy to work with the Senator to try to find out 
exactly whether there is one and how much it is. But the information 
that I received both from the staff and, admittedly, from the 
Department, is there is no cushion and passage of this amendment would, 
in fact, cause people who are currently in housing to lose their 
housing.
  I am not in a position to challenge the Senator's sources. I simply 
state that my sources have given me an additional answer. I have not 
looked over the books. I have not personally gone into the accounting 
of this situation, and therefore I am not in a position to do any more 
than state, as I have stated, that my information is different than 
his.
  Clearly, this is a subject that needs to be pursued. I congratulate 
him on raising it. The question for the Senate now is how we proceed on 
this amendment, whether the Senator will ask for a rollcall vote and, 
if he does, when we schedule it.
  Mr. COBURN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may state his inquiry.
  Mr. COBURN. Does a decision on a rollcall vote have to be made at 
this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is not under any obligation to ask 
for the yeas and nays at this time.
  Mr. COBURN. I will defer that at this time and have a discussion with 
the Senator from Utah about having a vote on this amendment.
  Mr. BENNETT. Very good. We will have that discussion. As I say, my 
desire is to give Senators notice if they are at a location 
sufficiently far from

[[Page S10280]]

the Capitol that they need a heads up. That is the only concern that I 
have. I will be here. I will be prepared to vote virtually at any time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 1796

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
Senate amendment No. 1796.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying aside the pending 
amendment?
  Hearing none, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for Mr. 
     Jeffords, proposes amendment numbered 1796.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide funds to carry out the historic barn preservation 
                        program, with an offset)

       On page 85, line 15, strike ``$128,072,000'' and insert 
     ``$126,072,000''.
       On page 126, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:


                   HISTORIC BARN PRESERVATION PROGRAM

       For the historic barn preservation program established 
     under section 379A of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2008o), $2,000,000.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent to lay the amendment aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1775

  (Purpose: To require that any limitation, directive, or earmarking 
   contained in either the House of Representatives or Senate report 
 accompanying this bill be included in the conference report or joint 
  statement accompanying the bill in order to be considered as having 
               been approved by both Houses of Congress)

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1775 and ask to 
set the pending amendment aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1775:
         At the appropriate place, insert the following:
         Sec. __. Any limitation, directive, or earmarking 
     contained in either the House of Representatives or Senate 
     report accompanying H.R. 2744 shall also be included in the 
     conference report or joint statement accompanying H.R. 2744 
     in order to be considered as having been approved by both 
     Houses of Congress.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is an amendment I offered earlier in 
the year on a previous appropriations bill. I want to set the stage for 
this because I think this is probably one of the most important 
amendments I will offer in the Senate. It is important the American 
public recognize what this amendment does.
  Appropriations bills start in the House. They come to the Senate. 
They are met in conference.
  In the House bill there is report language. In the Senate bill there 
is report language. In that report language is where you find out where 
the money is going to be spent. The purpose of this amendment is to 
make sure, when a bill comes out of conference, that the Members of 
this body know where all the money is going to be spent before they 
vote on the bill.
  There is no lack of desire for many of us who want to know that, but 
it is hard to find out as you approach the conference bill; that is, 
for us. But it is also difficult for the American people to know.
  What this amendment is about is about sunshine. It is about sunshine 
on the legislative process so that the American people know items that 
are special projects for Members of Congress, items that have been 
earmarked or especially directed that we ought to know of, and what 
that is ought to be in the report language, where it is going and to 
whom it is going.
  This amendment received 34 votes last time. I think it is absolutely 
imperative for us to keep the integrity of our appropriations process 
so that we know, No. 1, what is in the bills that we vote on and have 
available to us--that information on report language, but, No. 2, for 
the American people to know.
  It has been said they can find it on the Internet. They can if they 
care to really dig through it. But if there is report language that has 
it where you can go to, you can, in fact, know before we vote what the 
special interests are that influence the appropriations bills of this 
country.
  This is simply saying sunshine, let us know what is in it, let us 
print what is in it, and let us not deny what is in it. If it is good, 
great; if not, take the lumps that go along with it.
  If you are doing a special favor for someone, or earmarking one of 
your political constituencies, it ought to be out there, and it ought 
to be looked at.
  This is a simple, straightforward amendment that we ought to honestly 
say that we like sunshine rather than darkness and less than 
straightforwardness.
  It is my hope that the body will again consider this and add it to 
this bill so that, when we go to conference, everybody understands what 
is in the bill when it comes out of conference. We are going to know 
what is in the bill, and we will not have to play games to know what is 
in the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, as I examine this question, it is a 
question that involves the traditions and procedures of the full 
committee. At the risk of being accused of dodging, I would prefer to 
have Senator Cochran as chairman of the full committee examine and 
respond.
  We have reached out to get hold of Senator Cochran to see if he is 
willing to do that. But this would be a departure from previous 
procedures.
  As I understand, the Senator from Oklahoma would like there to be a 
permanent departure that occurs on virtually every appropriations bill 
from here on out. For that reason, I am a little reluctant to set a 
precedent on the bill over which I have responsibility which might then 
be cited as a precedent for all the other bills that would follow.
  For that reason, I hope we can have Senator Cochran appear and have 
his position before we come to the question of whether or not we vote 
on it.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, so the Members of the body know, I intend 
to offer this on every bill that doesn't have it. Some of the bills 
have had it but some have not. So my intention is to offer this 
amendment for the next 6 years on every appropriations bill that comes 
through because I believe more information going to the American public 
is a whole lot better than information hidden and sequestered away from 
them to know what we are doing.
  We are accountable. If we are doing our work, then we ought to be 
proud of our work, and we ought to put it out.
  I will be happy to discuss this with the chairman of the committee. 
He knows. I have had this debate with him before. I am persistent, and 
the Senator from Utah knows that. I believe the people of Oklahoma 
believe it. I believe that the vast majority of Americans believe it. 
We ought to know what we are voting on, where the money is going and 
who is going to benefit from it ought to be printed.
  On this amendment, I ask for the yeas and nays, and I ask for a 
rollcall vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1773

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I call for the regular order on the 
Coburn amendment No. 1773.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.

[[Page S10281]]

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I call for a vote on this by voice.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1773) was rejected.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
between now and 7 o'clock be evenly divided between myself and Senator 
Bingaman from New Mexico, with the vote on the Coburn amendment No. 
1775 to occur at 7 o'clock to be followed by a vote on the Bingaman 
amendment, with the yeas and nays ordered in both instances with no 
other amendments being allowed to either amendment prior to the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  It shall be in order to order the yeas and nays on any amendment at 
this time.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I call for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I renew my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair states that at 7 o'clock a rollcall 
vote will occur on the Coburn amendment, followed by a vote on the 
Bingaman amendment, with the time between now and then evenly divided 
between the Senator from Utah and the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that between the 
two votes there be a period of 2 minutes for explanation equally 
divided between the Senator from New Mexico and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. And I thank my 
colleague from Utah for his courtesy.


                           Amendment No. 1797

  Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself and 
     Mr. Lugar, proposes an amendment numbered 1797.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 85, line 15, strike ``$128,072,000'' and insert 
     ``$118,072,000''.
       On page 132, line 24, strike ``$12,412,027,000'' and insert 
     ``$12,422,027,000''.
       On page 132, line 26, strike ``$7,224,406,000'' and insert 
     ``$7,234,406,000''.
       On page 133, line 6, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That not less than 
     $20,025,000 shall be available to implement and administer 
     Team Nutrition programs of the Department of Agriculture''.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment I described earlier 
today, but let me describe it briefly again because it is very 
straightforward.
  Each year, when the administration sends the Congress its budget 
request for the Department of Agriculture, it asks for $10 million for 
nutrition education. It is the Team Nutrition programs sponsored by the 
Department of Agriculture. This is funding that goes to 21 States to 
try to assist them in providing nutrition education in the schools. The 
other 29 States get no funds. My State gets no funds because there is 
not enough being appropriated. This program cannot cover more than the 
21 States that are currently covered. So the children in my State do 
not get the benefit of this nutrition activity.
  Why is nutrition education an important issue for this Congress and 
this country at this time in our history? I would suggest that the best 
case for explaining that is set out in this letter which I received 
from the American Heart Association endorsing the amendment that I am 
offering on behalf of myself and Senator Lugar. Senator Lugar is the 
cosponsor of my amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       American Heart Association,


                                  American Stroke Association,

                                               September 21, 2005.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: On behalf of the American Heart 
     Association and its division, the American Stroke 
     Association, I am pleased to offer our support for 
     legislation that would expand funding for Team Nutrition. 
     This program provides funding to states to support nutrition 
     education and promote physical activity in schools. The 
     current funding level of $10 million provides support to only 
     21 States. The additional funding would be used to expand the 
     program so that more young people could obtain the knowledge 
     and skills necessary to make healthy lifestyle choices.
       Overweight and obesity, especially among children, have 
     emerged as serious threats to our nation's health. Today, 
     about 16 percent of all children and teens in the United 
     States are overweight. Obesity is a major risk factor for 
     coronary heart disease, which can lead to heart attack. 
     Obesity can also induce diabetes, which makes the danger of 
     heart attack especially high. Recent research suggests that 
     obesity shortens the average lifespan by at least four to 
     nine months, and if childhood obesity continues to increase, 
     it could cut two to five years from the average lifespan. 
     This could cause our current generation of children to become 
     the first in American history to live shorter lives than 
     their parents. Besides its toll on health, obesity 
     contributes significantly to rising health care costs. The 
     World Bank has estimated the cost of obesity at 12 percent of 
     the nation's healthcare budget.
       The American Heart Association is committed to lowering 
     rates of overweight and obesity in the United States by 
     helping Americans make better nutrition choices and by 
     facilitating increased levels of physical activity at all 
     ages. We support program and activities like those in your 
     amendment, that can help reduce rates of obesity, 
     cardiovascular disease and stroke. We commend you for your 
     leadership on this issue and look forward to working with you 
     to advance this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Sue A. Nelson,
                                  Vice President Federal Advocacy.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will read parts of this letter so 
people can understand the case that is being made.
  The American Heart Association letter directed to me, signed by Sue 
Nelson, Vice President for Federal Advocacy, says:

       Overweight and obesity, especially among children, have 
     merged as serious threats to our Nation's health. Today, 
     about 16 percent of all children and teens in the United 
     States are overweight. Obesity is the major risk factor for 
     coronary heart disease which can lead to heart attack. 
     Obesity can induce diabetes which makes the danger of heart 
     attack especially high. Recent research suggests that obesity 
     shortens the average lifespan by at least 4 to 9 months, and 
     if childhood obesity continues to increase it could cut 2 to 
     5 years from the average lifespan. It could cause our current 
     generation of children to be the first in American history to 
     live shorter lives than their parents. Besides its toll on 
     health, obesity contributes significantly to rising health 
     care costs.

  The World Bank has estimated that the cost of obesity is 12 percent 
of this country's overall health care budget.
  The problem is we don't seem to be willing to connect the dots. We 
don't seem to be willing to say if we spent a little more on something 
like nutrition education, maybe we would not have to spend 12 percent 
of our health care budget to deal with the problem of obesity. That is 
the simple reality.
  All I am saying is, let's begin to connect the dots and put a 
reasonable amount of funding into the effort to provide instruction to 
children in our schools about how to eat a decent diet and maintain a 
decent body weight. That is the entire purpose of the amendment.
  We used to appropriate more money for nutrition education than we do 
today. Unfortunately, the last 3 years we have fallen into an automatic 
$10 million a year. That means no new States can participate in the 
program. It means no new students can get the benefit of this 
instruction. To my mind that is not an acceptable circumstance, 
particularly with this change in the lifestyle of Americans which we 
see all around us.
  We need to provide good information to our young people so they can 
grow up and lead healthy productive lives. We are not doing that today. 
When you look around other parts of the Federal budget and say, well, 
okay, maybe the Department of Agriculture is not providing help with 
this, but maybe the Department of Education is. They are not. This is 
the only effort being made by the Federal Government to assist.
  We have a lot of lofty statements being made by the administration. I

[[Page S10282]]

welcome those statements. We need to follow through with some reality 
in addition to the statements. The administration has launched an 
initiative. It refers to this initiative as the Healthier United States 
School Challenge, and it focuses on helping children to live longer, 
better, and healthier lives.
  Our former Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman and the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture announced in July that the school challenge 
builds upon the team nutrition program and recognizes schools that have 
obtained nutrition and physical activity standards. So we are 
announcing initiatives and calling them the Healthier United States 
School Challenge, but we are not willing to put in funds to allow the 
programs to be available to most children in this country. To my mind, 
that is not a responsible course. We can do better.
  I offered an amendment similar to this 2 years ago in the Senate when 
the Agriculture appropriations bill came up. At that time I was told, 
no, there is no money; we cannot afford to do this. I withdrew the 
amendment at that time and I was encouraged because both the managers 
of the bill advised they would try to find additional funds. They were 
not able to do that. I am sure in good faith they tried. They were not 
able to do that. Accordingly, we are still at $10 million.
  I don't know of any other way to get this issue dealt with other than 
to ask the Senate to please vote on this. Please support my amendment 
and Senator Lugar's amendment and increase this funding. The offset we 
have chosen is one that is called CCE, common computer environment. It 
is a $128 million item in the budget for improving the coordination of 
the computing in the various parts of the Department of Agriculture. I 
am sure it is a worthy purpose, but I would be willing to see that 
reduced by $10 million so we could put that $10 million into child 
nutrition education. That is the purpose of that amendment.
  I hope my colleagues will support it. At this time I have used my 10 
minutes and I will go ahead and yield the floor and have a chance to 
explain it very briefly before the actual vote occurs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, there is no question but that an 
education program to try to get our young people to eat better makes 
sense. There is no question that we should do what we can to deal with 
the challenge of obesity.
  Now let us look at a few realities with which we are faced. The 
President requested $10.25 million for the program. The amendment 
offered by Senator Bingaman and Senator Lugar would virtually double 
that amount. There is no other program we are dealing with where the 
request is to double the funds. We have people who are requesting 
incremental increases of 5 percent and 10 percent, but quite frankly we 
have resisted.
  The total number of earmarks and requests that have come in since the 
committee acted is over $50 million. We have stood firm against all of 
them and said we are sorry, the money isn't there. We feel we have to 
stand firm against it. So this $10 million would double the program as 
it currently exists and would be 20 percent of the total amount we on 
the subcommittee have said we cannot fund.
  The offset is very interesting. It is the common computer 
environment. It always seems easy to say, well, we can get by, by 
delaying activity with the computers. Let's cut the computers because 
education is more important.
  During the debate we have had today, we have heard complaints from 
people about interoperability, about inability to communicate in the 
time of emergency. Katrina has exposed problems with computers. If we 
were to cut the computer program as drastically as this would cut it, 
we run the risk of closing county offices. We run the risk of stopping 
the modernization of services right at a time when complaints are 
coming in about how antiquated those services are.
  But interestingly, as the $50 million requests have come in, almost 
all of them, when we told them you have to have an offset, say let's 
cut the computers. If indeed we responded to every one of the requests 
for additional spending, we would have cut the computers $50 million.
  I don't want to cut the computers at all. I accept the arguments that 
say we have challenges with communication in the Department; we need to 
have as modern a communication system as we possibly can. The common 
computer environment that is trying to create that interoperability 
should be encouraged and maintained.
  For that reason, as fond as I am of the Senator from New Mexico and 
the Senator from Indiana, I have to oppose this amendment. I will ask 
my colleagues, when the time comes for the rollcall vote, to oppose it. 
There will be another bill next year. We will see where we are next 
year with overall spending. We will see where we are with respect to 
emergencies and how the Department of Agriculture is dealing with those 
emergencies.
  I am convinced when we come to that, as we sift through all the 
damage that is done by Katrina and perhaps by Rita and other 
challenges, we would like to have as powerful and as modern a computer 
system to deal with communications as we possibly can.
  For those reasons, the doubling of a program at a time of budget 
constraints that we find ourselves in, and taking the offset from a 
program where we feel we need to be as modern as we possibly can, gives 
me two reasons to say that I would be opposed to this amendment.
  I still have an additional 5 minutes and I frankly have said all I 
need to say. I yield back the remainder of my time. If the Senator from 
New Mexico wishes to claim it, I am happy to have him use it; 
otherwise, we can go into a quorum call until such time as the vote 
starts at 7 o'clock, unless there are other Senators who wish to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I will speak for another couple of minutes.
  I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Murkowski and Senator Coburn 
as cosponsors of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bond). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me make one point. This is 
requesting that we double the size of this program, but at the current 
time, we are spending 21 cents per child per year on nutrition 
education out of the Federal Government. This is suggesting we might 
want to spend up to 42 cents per child per year.
  I remember when I offered this amendment 2 years ago, Senator Byrd 
said we ought to at least provide as much per child as it costs to buy 
a candy bar. I thought that was pretty good insight.
  I see my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, wishes to speak 
briefly.
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the Senator for his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is an area I am all too familiar 
with. If we are going to solve the health care crisis in America, it 
starts with prevention. In the year 2070, one out of every $2 of 
Medicare we spend will be for diabetes. Fifty percent of the diabetes 
that will occur in the future can be prevented by good nutrition 
education in the early years, not only of the children but of the 
parents.
  This is a fantastic amendment. I told the Senator from New Mexico I 
wished I had thought of it. For every $1 we spend on prevention, we get 
$17 back. For every $1 we spend on computers, we probably get $2 or $3 
back. It comes back to the questions of priorities.
  This is a great idea. I understand the resistance to not cut anything 
in a bill that comes to the floor from a Committee on Appropriations. I 
understand that. But I think of all the amendments I have heard, 
including mine, other than sunshine, this is the best I have heard 
because it will have the greatest impact. We get the most value for the 
dollars we spend. That is what we should be about. I heartily support 
the amendment and I hope the Senate will too.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The Senator from Utah is 
recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we have had previous conversations about 
the effectiveness of the Agriculture Department. We are talking about 
our own backgrounds. I have a little bit of

[[Page S10283]]

background in advertising. I would be anxious before we spend this 
money to do a little analysis of how effective the advertising has 
been.
  You talk about instruction in schools. We all know that there are 
instructions that work and there are instructions that don't. My own 
experience is that the Government is not very good at advertising 
healthy lifestyle changes. We could have been spending--I have no idea. 
We have not researched this at all. I have no idea where the evidence 
might be. We could have been spending the 21 cents per pupil and 
wasting every bit of it in terms of results.
  I have something of a background in advertising and I know how much 
advertising budgets get wasted simply because the advertising campaign 
is not effectively carried out.
  I recommend to my colleagues we defeat this amendment and if, indeed, 
the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from New Mexico can examine 
this from their background and demonstrate we are getting a 17-to-1 
return from this particular program, that we are getting a 17-to-1 
return from the kind of instruction going on in classrooms, then I 
would be happy to endorse this at some future time.
  In terms of what has been the result of the $10 million we have been 
spending, how certain will we be that doubling that is going to, in 
fact, increase health among our children? It may well be that a GAO 
study would say the $10 million has been spent on training materials 
that have been ineffective and produced no result whatever.
  In effect, we are being asked to buy something of a pig in a poke 
without understanding exactly how it works. I hope we would stay with 
the committee allocation here. The issue is a very legitimate issue. I, 
for one, will be more than willing in the hearings to ask the 
Department to give us a demonstration of how effective this has been.
  If it can be demonstrated that it has, in fact, reduced obesity and 
has had some impact on diabetes, at that point I would be all for 
doubling it or tripling it because of the 17-to-1 figure the Senator 
from Oklahoma cites. But lacking that information, in this particular 
situation I would be loathe to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1775

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on agreeing to the Coburn amendment No. 1775. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) and the Senator from Wyoming 
(Mr. Enzi).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Corzine), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from 
Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) are necessary absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 238 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Burns
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--39

     Allard
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Conrad
     DeWine
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Murray
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Corzine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Inouye
     Mikulski
     Rockefeller
  The amendment (No. 1775) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request in 
which all Senators, I believe, will be interested.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the next vote, 
there be no other rollcall votes until 9:30 tomorrow morning, with the 
understanding that all amendments will be offered tonight, all debate 
will take place tonight, and all votes that occur tomorrow will be 
stacked to be followed by final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BENNETT. That means, Mr. President, that there will be no more 
votes tonight, and amendments that require rollcall votes will be voted 
on in the morning, and that we will go to final passage immediately at 
9:30 tomorrow after disposing of any rollcall votes. We have several 
amendments pending which we hope we can deal with by voice votes 
tonight, and I hope that we will not have any more rollcall votes and 
can go immediately to final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I certainly understand the chairman's 
sentiments, but I ask the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee 
what the impact of this schedule will be on our hearing tomorrow.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the answer to that is, we will work 
around it. We will proceed, and we will get the nominee voted out of 
committee. We can accommodate it. That is the answer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1797

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 2 minutes 
evenly divided on the amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico. 
The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is being offered by 
myself, Senator Lugar, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Coburn. The 
amendment would add $10 million for child nutrition to the program that 
already exists in the Department of Agriculture called Team Nutrition. 
This is the only significant Federal effort we have to assist with 
nutritional education in our schools.
  Today, it is drastically underfunded. This would allow us to add $10 
million. Instead of spending 21 cents per child per year in this 
country on nutritional education from the Federal Government, we would 
be spending 42 cents.
  This is an amendment that I think all Members should support. 
Clearly, this is needed to deal with the problem of childhood obesity 
that is becoming an epidemic in our society.
  I hope my colleagues will all support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the President's request for this program 
was $10 million. This amendment doubles it and takes the money away 
from computers at a time when the Department is doing its very best to 
increase its interoperability and raise its level of technological 
ability. I do not think doubling a program that has not been evaluated 
for its effectiveness is the right thing to do in this time of heavy 
budget pressure.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1797. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the 
Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Corzine), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from 
Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?

[[Page S10284]]

  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 239 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thune
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--29

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCain
     Roberts
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Corzine
     Domenici
     Inouye
     Mikulski
     Rockefeller
  The amendment (No. 1797) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1835.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1835.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

              (Purpose: To limit the use of certain funds)

       On page 160, line 10, before the period at the end insert 
     the following: ``or for reimbursement of administrative costs 
     under section 16(a) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2025(a)) to a State agency for which more than 10 percent of 
     the costs (other than costs for issuance of benefits or 
     nutrition education) are obtained under contract''.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first, I want to commend Senator Bennett 
and Senator Kohl for their work on the bill that is before us today, 
the Agriculture appropriations bill. They worked hard to put together a 
good bipartisan bill and overall I find no fault with it. I think it is 
a great bill and it will have my support. I thank both Senator Bennett 
and Senator Kohl and their respective staffs for working with me and 
with my staff on a number of issues that are in the Agriculture 
appropriations bill.
  I want to draw the attention of Senators to page 160 of the bill, 
section 746:

       None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to 
     study, complete a study of, or enter into a contract with a 
     private party to carry out, without specific authorization in 
     a subsequent Act of Congress, a competitive sourcing activity 
     of the Secretary of Agriculture, including support personnel 
     of the Department of Agriculture, relating to rural 
     development or farm loan programs.

  Well, what does all that say? What it says basically is that the 
Department of Agriculture cannot engage in any contracting out to 
private contractors applications processes for anyone coming in to get 
any assistance under rural development or farm loan programs. In other 
words, those have to be carried out by public employees, employees who 
are publicly hired, and that any activity relating to that must go 
through those employees.
  It says basically it has to be that way until we in the Agriculture 
Committee on the Senate and the House authorize the Department of 
Agriculture to specifically engage in such contracting activity.
  Do I support section 746? Yes, I think it is a good addition to the 
bill. I do not think the Secretary or the Department ought to be going 
out and contracting out to private entities these kinds of activities 
until we have had a chance to look at it, until the authorizing 
committees of the Senate and the House have hearings, take into 
consideration what is involved, and either grant that to the Secretary 
of Agriculture or not grant it.
  So I think section 746 is basically a sound approach that recognizes 
both the value of the public sector and public employees, and 
recognizes the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committees. However, 
there is something missing from section 746. I believe this same logic 
should apply to other USDA programs. In particular, I believe we need 
to protect vital services and benefits offered through the Food Stamp 
Program.
  The amendment I am offering would apply the same protection that 746 
applies to farm loan and rural development functions to the Food Stamp 
Program as well. In other words, my amendment basically says if you 
want to contract out to private contractors elements of the Food Stamp 
Program that have to do with application processes, you cannot do it 
until it is specifically authorized by Congress--just as the underlying 
bill requires for rural development or farm loan programs.
  My amendment is basically an extension of the logic of the underlying 
bill. It is not a departure from it. It is not a major policy change. 
It simply says the Food Stamp Program, like rural development and farm 
loan programs, is a vital public service program. It is not broken, it 
is working well. If you want to make some changes, why don't you come 
to Congress. We will have some hearings, and we will see if it needs to 
be fixed.
  I have been on the Agriculture Committee now for 30 years. That is 
right, this is my 30th year, now that I think about it: 10 in the House 
and 20 in the Senate. We have been through a lot in the Food Stamp 
Program in 30 years. We have always made changes to it to meet changing 
times and circumstances. I was one of those who was in the lead on 
getting rid of food stamps and getting it to an electronic benefit 
transfer program, where you have a debit program. It has worked well.
  However, in all of those cases we in the Congress decided on the 
changes that should be made to the underlying program, not just the 
Secretary of Agriculture. As I said, this program is not broken. In 
fact, recent events have highlighted the value of the Food Stamp 
Program and the need to protect it from changes that could undermine 
it.
  Amidst the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina, the Food Stamp 
Program has nobly and efficiently served those in need.
  There has been a lot of criticism of the Federal Government's 
response to Katrina, but I have heard no criticism of the Food Stamp 
Program. In many places hit by Katrina, the Disaster Food Stamp Program 
was one of the first responders. We often think of first responders as 
being firefighters and policemen, emergency services personnel. That is 
true, they are. But in this case, first responders were also those 
public employees who helped those most in need get the food they needed 
for themselves and their families.
  In Louisiana, nearly 300,000 households are already receiving food 
stamps and have been for the last couple of weeks since the hurricane 
hit. In Texas, another 125,000 households are receiving emergency food 
stamp assistance. Overall, approximately 1 million individuals affected 
or displaced by Hurricane Katrina are receiving emergency food stamp 
benefits.
  The USDA was able to respond quickly and set up these programs 
efficiently, in large part because the programs were run by State 
agencies in consultation with the Federal Government. That was their 
purpose. That was their reason for being.
  Why do we want to allow the Food Stamp Program to be privatized and 
put out to private contractors? Usually you do that if there is a 
problem, if something is failing to meet the needs of people. I defy 
anyone in this Senate to come up and show me or show anyone where the 
Food Stamp Program is failing to meet the needs of the people it 
serves, or is not being run efficiently.
  When the next disaster occurs, do we want an outside contractor 
responsible for running the Disaster Food Stamp Program? Do we in the 
Senate want to open up the program to the risks associated with food 
stamp privatization in general? We can ill-afford to put the Food Stamp 
Program and the millions who benefit from it at this kind of risk.
  What do I mean by risk? What is at the bottom of this? We know there 
has

[[Page S10285]]

been a State that is currently seeking permission from the Department 
of Agriculture to privatize food stamps. Here is what they want to do. 
They want to close a number of food stamp offices where a person goes 
to meet face to face with someone to determine eligibility and get 
their approval for food stamps. They want to close about 100 of those 
and open up three call centers. If you want to apply for food stamps, 
they tell me you are going to have to call on the phone. Or you can go 
online, as if people who apply for food stamps are sitting at home at 
their computers.
  Let's take the case of these call centers. I have no reason to 
believe that it couldn't work like this. Imagine, here are people 
desperately in need of food stamps. They get a number to call--probably 
an 800 number or something like that, probably toll free, I assume. 
They call up. A voice answers, an automated voice answering system 
answers and says: I understand because you are calling you probably 
want to apply for food stamps. If you want to apply for food stamps and 
you live in this area, punch 1; if you live in this area, punch 2; if 
you live in this area, punch 3. You get all the way through and you are 
pretty confused about where you live.
  Let's say you figure it out and you say I am in this area and you 
punch 3. Then another voice comes on and says: OK, we understand you 
live in this area and you want to apply for food stamps. If you are a 
single person, punch 1; if there are two of you, punch 2; if you have a 
family of three, punch 3. You see what I am saying? Then you have to 
punch in another entry.

  Another automated voice comes on and says the next step in this 
process: If you are over a certain age, press this number; if you are 
under a certain age, press this number; if you have ever applied for 
food stamps--do you see what I am getting at? You have a person on the 
phone who wants to apply for food stamps and they are sitting there 
trying to figure out, punch 3 for this, punch 4 for that.
  Finally, after they get through all of these automated voice prompts 
they are probably told: Thank you, your waiting time to talk to the 
next operator is now 19 minutes. And you have to sit there and listen 
to music. If you are patient enough to wait that long, you are probably 
going to get someone on the line you will talk to. For all I know, by 
the time you actually get to them, the person on the other line may not 
even be in the United States. That is what this is all about.
  There are some companies that want to do this. They probably figured 
out they can make a lot of money. They hire someone in another country 
for, I don't know, 50 cents an hour.
  Again, the underlying bill says you cannot do that if you are a 
utility company and you want to apply for a rural development loan. 
They don't make you go through call centers. They have someone there 
you go see.
  If you are a farmer, if you have a farm, you have assets, you own 
something, and you want to apply for a farm loan, you don't have to go 
through a call center. You go see someone. But by allowing wholesale 
privatization of the Food Stamp Program, we would not be providing to 
low-income Americans the same basic treatment. Poor people have to go 
through call centers and get all the runaround that we always get when 
we try to call and get someone in one of those call centers.
  That is why section 746 needs to be amended. That is why it needs 
this addition, so that the Food Stamp Program is treated the same as 
farm loans or rural development. If they want to change it, have them 
come up to Congress. We will have hearings. We will take a look at it. 
Maybe they can make a good case. I don't know. But I am just concerned 
if we do not add this amendment, that waivers will be given that will 
allow contracting out the food stamp operations.
  Furthermore, this may undo a lot of the progress we have made in 
improving program integrity. Right now, program error in the Food Stamp 
Program is the lowest than at any time in its existence. Why do you 
want to change it? If something is working, why try to fix it? Why 
would we choose to put these successes at risk by now turning it over 
to untested entities and call centers?
  Under the current food stamp law, public employees of State food 
stamp agencies are responsible for two essential oversight functions: 
Payment accuracy and an annual self-evaluation of program management. 
But if these functions are turned over to a private contractor with no 
experience in running the Food Stamp Program, how do we know if they 
will be able to maintain program accuracy? Should we just roll the dice 
and take it on faith that they will continue the error rate as low as 
we have it right now?
  I want to make it clear, I am not opposed to privatization of certain 
things. I point out the electronic benefit transfer program under food 
stamps is privatized. It is all run by--I guess Citibank or someone, I 
don't know, I could be a little wrong on that. But that is fine. There 
is nothing wrong with turning to specialized contractors for technical 
services like financial operations. What I am talking about is when you 
apply for food stamps; when you are in need and you want to apply or 
you want to modify your food stamps because of another child born or 
some other thing, something else has happened to change your life. That 
is when you need to have someone there who can help you immediately in 
your situation and talk to you.
  Anyway, as I said, my amendment would not stop that. It would not 
stop the private contracting out for EBT, but it certainly would for 
fundamental program functions like application and eligibility 
processes.
  To repeat for emphasis sake, there is no evidence that we have any 
problems in the Food Stamp Program that requires privatization. The 
error rate is the lowest ever. The accuracy rate is high. Emergency 
food stamps for disaster situations have worked extremely well. So 
there is no evidence, nor have we had a hearing, to suggest that 
privatizing the Food Stamp Program would in any way improve program 
effectiveness. That is why we should have extensive hearings on this 
before allowing any waivers to be granted.
  The Food Stamp Program is strong. Not only does it deliver much 
needed food assistance to 25 million Americans, but as we have just 
shown with Katrina, it is serving hundreds of thousands of families, 
over a million people devastated by that hurricane.
  My amendment simply ensures that the Food Stamp Program remains as it 
is with those public employees best suited to carry it out. It extends 
the logic that is in Section 1746 of the underlying bill dealing with 
rural development farm and loan programs to the Food Stamp Program as 
well.
  As I said, if they want to do something, they can come to the 
Agriculture Committee. We can have hearings and take into account some 
problems that somebody might feel would be cured by privatizing and 
setting up these call centers for food stamp applications.
  I ask for support of the amendment, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask that we proceed to a vote on the 
Harkin amendment by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on amendment? If not, 
the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1835) was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee for 
his kindness and having this vote. Hopefully we can at least keep this 
in as we move ahead going to conference.
  I thank the chairman for his kindness.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am unaware of any other Senator who is 
planning to offer any amendment. I don't want to cut anybody off, but I 
made it clear during the vote that all amendments have to be offered 
tonight and all debate take place tonight. We are scheduled for the 
vote tomorrow morning. My understanding is that the Dayton amendment is 
still pending, and, therefore, if it can't be disposed of tonight, it 
would be available for tomorrow morning. The Jeffords amendment is 
still pending, and if that cannot be resolved tonight, that would be 
voted on tomorrow morning. Those are

[[Page S10286]]

the only two I am aware of at the present time.
  I will suggest the absence of a quorum so we can check the list and 
see who else might be out there. But I would say to any who are 
monitoring our procedures on behalf of their respective Senators that 
the time for offering amendments is getting mighty short. We don't want 
to deny any Senator his or her rights, but I feel we have given fair 
warning this is what we will do.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1818

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1818, which is at 
the desk, on behalf of Senator Dodd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl] for Mr. Dodd, for 
     himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Reed, Mr. Carper, Mr. Biden, and Mr. 
     Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 1818.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To require the Food and Drug Administration to issue a 
         monograph with respect to over-the-counter sunscreen)

       On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 7  . (a) Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Consumers need clear and consistent information about 
     the risks associated with exposure to the sun, and the 
     protection offered by over-the-counter sunscreen products.
       (2) The Food and Drug Administration (referred to in this 
     section as the ``FDA'') began developing a monograph for 
     over-the-counter sunscreen products in 1978.
       (3) In 2002, after 23 years, the FDA issued the final 
     monograph for such sunscreen products.
       (4) One of the most critical aspects of sunscreen is how to 
     measure protection against UVA rays, which cause skin cancer.
       (5) The final sunscreen monograph failed to address this 
     critical aspect and, accordingly, the monograph was stayed 
     shortly after being issued until issuance of a comprehensive 
     monograph.
       (6) Skin cancer rates continue to rise, especially in 
     younger adults and women.
       (7) Pursuant to section 751 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379r), a Federal rule on sunscreen 
     labeling would preempt any related State labeling 
     requirements.
       (8) The absence of a Federal rule could lead to a patchwork 
     of State labeling requirements that would be confusing to 
     consumers and unnecessarily burdensome to manufacturers.
       (b) Not later than one year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the FDA shall issue a comprehensive final monograph 
     for over-the-counter sunscreen products, which shall include 
     UVA and UVB labeling requirements.


                Amendment No. 1849 to Amendment No. 1818

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in the 
second degree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for Mr. Dodd, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1849 to amendment No. 1818.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress with respect to over-the-
                           counter sunscreen)

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 7___. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Consumers need clear and consistent information about 
     the risks associated with exposure to the sun, and the 
     protection offered by over-the-counter sunscreen products.
       (2) The Food and Drug Administration (referred to in this 
     section as the ``FDA'') began developing a monograph for 
     over-the-counter sunscreen products in 1978.
       (3) In 2002, after 23 years, the FDA issued the final 
     monograph for such sunscreen products.
       (4) One of the most critical aspects of sunscreen is how to 
     measure protection against UVA rays, which cause skin cancer.
       (5) The final sunscreen monograph failed to address this 
     critical aspect and, accordingly, the monograph was stayed 
     shortly after being issued until issuance of a comprehensive 
     monograph.
       (6) Skin cancer rates continue to rise, especially in 
     younger adults and women.
       (7) Pursuant to section 751 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379r), a Federal rule on sunscreen 
     labeling would preempt any related State labeling 
     requirements.
       (8) The absence of a Federal rule could lead to a patchwork 
     of State labeling requirements that would be confusing to 
     consumers and unnecessarily burdensome to manufacturers.
       (b) It is the sense of Congress that the FDA should, not 
     later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     issue a comprehensive final monograph for over-the-counter 
     sunscreen products, including UVA and UVB labeling 
     requirements, in order to provide consumers with all the 
     necessary information regarding the dangers of skin cancer 
     and the importance of wearing sunscreen.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the modification and 
adoption of the amendment as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the second-degree amendment. The amendment (No. 1849) 
was agreed to.
  Mr. KOHL. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the first-
degree amendment, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 1818), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. KOHL. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank you.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, no one has come forward, so we are 
prepared to close down with the two amendments still unresolved, Dayton 
and Jeffords, and then move to final passage after those two are 
resolved for a voice vote or yeas and nays, I assume which will be 
determined tomorrow. At the moment, the yeas and nays have not been 
ordered. I want to respect the rights of both of those Senators.
  While we get together whatever final activity needs to go forward, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Molokai Agriculture Development

  Mr. INOUYE. Would the distinguished Senators from Utah and Wisconsin 
yield? I would like to discuss with you a program that addresses the 
very limited employment and high barriers to entry into sustainable 
agricultural enterprises on the Island of Molokai.
  Mr. BENNETT. I would be pleased to yield to the senior Senator from 
Hawaii.
  Mr. KOHL. I, too, would also like to join in on the discussion of 
this matter.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank my distinguished colleagues for yielding. In 
fiscal year 2005 and prior fiscal years, the subcommittee has included 
$250,000 for a program that provides training, business coaching, and 
cost share assistance to new agricultural businesses on the Island of 
Molokai, that have the promise of being sustainable and beneficial to 
this predominantly Native Hawaiian community. In 2004, the program 
allowed past grantees who had demonstrated success in their businesses 
to apply for expansion and enhancement funding. As a result, eight 
businesses were able to strengthen their operations through 
diversification, value added treatment, and improved marketing. As a 
result of the program, increased quantities and percentages of local 
produce and value added products are available in Molokai's grocery 
stores, farmers markets and other venues. In addition, the marketing of 
sweet potatoes and papayas has continued to expand to the Island of 
Maui and on the mainland. In the coming year, the emphasis will be on 
first-time farm businesses. Mini start-up grants will be instituted to 
prepare new applicants for possible

[[Page S10287]]

projects in the future. While this program is showing success in an 
economically depressed part of my State, the need for this program 
continues.
  Despite the support by the Congress, no funds are provided for the 
program in fiscal year 2006. Accordingly, efforts to assist first-time 
farm businesses and to provide assistance and employment opportunities 
to the Island of Molokai will not continue without the continued 
support of the Congress and funding for the program. Would my 
colleagues consider including such support for the program during 
conference deliberations on the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and related agencies appropriations bill?
  Mr. BENNETT. I would like to assure the Senator from Hawaii that I 
will work with Senator Kohl to ensure that this program will be 
considered in conference.
  Mr. KOHL. I concur with my colleague from Utah, and will also work 
with him to have this program addressed in conference.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank my colleagues for their consideration and support 
of the Molokai Agriculture Development program.


                           position transfer

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for the purposes 
of a colloquy.
  Senator Kohl, the legume plant pathologist position currently working 
in the CRIS titled ``Improving Disease Management of Soil-borne 
Diseases of Edible Legumes'' is being eliminated in a reorganization 
proposed by USDA ARS.
  Root diseases are fast becoming a major problem in all of the 
production areas. These root diseases cause a loss of yields and 
quality of pulse crops.
  A reduction of research support by USDA ARS at this time of rapidly 
increasing acreages of pulses in ND, MT, SD and NE is unacceptable. 
Eliminating this research could substantially hurt the entire pulse 
crop industry.
  Within the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture appropriations, there is 
funding provided for a legume pathologist focused on root diseases. Due 
to the reorganization of the ARS Prosser facility, this pathologist 
will not be funded unless that position is moved to the ARS Pullman 
facility. The need for this project is clear and should be supported by 
ARS. In order to continue this vital research it is clear that it will 
need to be moved to ARS Pullman.
  I ask that the conference report accompanying the Agriculture bill 
include language directing ARS to transfer the legume pathologist 
position and the $250,000 from the Vegetable and Forage Legume Research 
Unit at Prosser, WA, to the Grain Legume Genetics and Physiology 
Research Unit at Pullman, WA. This requires no new funding, as it will 
solely involve the transfer of the legume pathologist from Prosser to 
Pullman.
  This will allow ARS to continue its research on pulse crops at no 
additional costs.
  Senator Kohl, would you support this language moving the legume 
pathologist position from Prosser, WA, to Pullman, WA?
  Mr. KOHL. Yes, Senator Murray. Thank you for bringing this issue to 
my attention. I will work with my colleagues in conference to support 
your request and include language in the final report.
  Mr. BENNETT. I concur with my colleague's views on the need to move 
this ARS position to Pullman, WA, from Prosser, WA, and will work with 
Senator Kohl in conference to have language included in the final 
report.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Senator Kohl, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
for your support on this issue. This project is critical to the long-
term health and viability of dry pea and lentil producers in Washington 
State and all across the country.


                       Citrus Canker Compensation

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the serious 
problem of a disease that threatens to wipe out the citrus industry of 
Florida. I sincerely appreciate the great efforts made thus far by 
Chairman Bennett, the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, 
and their staff to work to address the on-going eradication efforts in 
Florida. Under the FY 2006 Agriculture appropriations bill, $40,000,000 
has been directed towards the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service to assist citrus producers in combating this terrible 
bacterium.
  Citrus canker is a bacterial disease characterized by the lesions it 
leaves on citrus trees and fruit that leaves trees weakened and results 
in reduced fruit production.
  The four hurricanes that hit Florida in 2004 caused significant 
spread of citrus canker into commercial growing areas. The 2004 
hurricane season in Florida not only damaged citrus crops and trees, it 
was a primary cause of the spread of citrus canker beyond what was 
generally believed to be reaching a goal of eradication. The storms 
created an additional need for compensation to support the continuing 
eradication effort.
  Compensation for citrus producers is a vital component of the program 
as many commercial growers would not allow their trees to be cut 
without the promise of compensation. There is no cure for canker. The 
only known way to contain the spread of citrus canker is to cut down 
infected and exposed trees in a 1,900 square foot area. In a commercial 
grove, that radius can encompass up to 250 acres around a single 
infected tree. That's why the post-hurricanes outbreak has led to the 
destruction of nearly 55,000 acres.
  USDA has estimated that the 2002-2005 citrus crop will yield 151 
million boxes of oranges, down from their 225 million box estimate 
earlier in 2004. This year's decrease of 94 million boxes represents a 
staggering decrease of 38 percent.
  Before the 2004 hurricane season, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
had compensated commercial growers an average $7,600 an acre for 
destroying their property. According to my growers in Florida and the 
Florida Department of Citrus, the backlog of unpaid compensation has 
grown to nearly $450 million. It is my hope that during the conference 
negotiations process with the House Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee that citrus canker compensation funding will be addressed 
at an appropriate level on behalf of growers that abide by the USDA 
canker eradication program.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank Senator Martinez, for sharing his concerns on 
this important issue. It is my understanding that the House has 
appropriated $10 million for citrus canker compensation payments and we 
are aware of the impact that this disease has on the citrus industry in 
his State. We are committed to working with his office to help provide 
funding for his growers that have worked with USDA to help eradicate 
this destructive bacteria.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I thank the chairman. I appreciate his support and look 
forward to working with him as well as the appropriations process moves 
forward.

                          ____________________